> > PATCH is not causing anyone any trouble. > Then why is it the redheaded stepchild of HTTP methods, defined by its own RFC as opposed to being part of the core protocol? > > This proposal does not "overload” anything. If anything, > I’m writing this to avoid overloading PUT or POST with > semantics that may be misunderstood by origin servers. > Did you mean to say intermediaries? No origin server I've ever coded has ever misunderstood anything about the application it's serving, let alone the intended semantics of a chosen method. > > The PATCH semantics, by contrast, are being used exactly > as intended and understood. > Sort of. RFC 5789 included "resource creation" sure. But do you have any examples of PATCH being used that way in the wild? I can't help but wonder if there isn't a good reason it took 12 years for this issue to come up. Like maybe the RFC got it wrong? PATCH's "update" semantics are understood, and (perhaps widely) used as intended. Creation, not so much! Never occurred to me that it would be controversial, to think that updating something pre-assumes its existence, and should report an error otherwise. Creation via PATCH falls under my definition of "silent error correction" which makes it a "bad thing" in the HTTP universe. -Eric
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2022 06:04:14 UTC